c/techtakes · by dgerard@awful.systems · 44d

Meta’s new AI creep glasses will record 24-7 without a light

https://pivot-to-ai.com/2026/07/09/metas-new-ai-creep-glasses-will-record-24-7-without-a-light/

the continuing legacy of FaceMash

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8YxiCqUz98&list=UU9rJrMVgcXTfa8xuMnbhAEA - video
https://pivottoai.libsyn.com/20260709-metas-new-ai-creep-glasses-to-record-24-7-without-a-light - podcast

time: 5 min 05 sec

311 points · 46 comments · view on lemmy.world

46 Comments

xenomor@lemmy.world · 93 pts · 44d (3 replies)

It’s wild to me that Ray Ban chose to immolate their brand like this.

JayGray91@piefed.social · 30 pts · 44d

Long term brand image is worthless. Number must go up this quarter, even if the world burns down. ~~Especially burn down the world~~

TrickDacy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 44d (1 reply)

Wait what am I missing re: Ray ban?

justaman123@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 44d

Rayban is making them

wirebeads@lemmy.ca · 54 pts · 44d

Zuckerfuck is absolute cancer, but the even sadder part is how many losers buy this shit. Shame.

minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 44 pts · 44d

Metas way to get AI training data is these glasses, palantir is flock cameras, Google is their existing inventory of video from mapping the entire fucking world, Musk has Tesla vehicles, they all have a means to watch the world and feed it to AI. Many have user data from all our devices and our online behaviors that can extrapolate and deduce what reality is.

We're legit fucked if these companies continue to operate in private, secrecy, and zero enforced return of value for he public well-being.

Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 42 pts · 44d (3 replies)

We had to ban these at my workplace.

They were already prohibited due to our existing mobile policies, but we had to especially ban them whenever someone brought them in.

WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 13 pts · 44d (2 replies)

Did you already know they were creepy, or did they out themselves?

o7___o7@awful.systems · 10 pts · 44d

I imagine Andrew brought them on day 1

Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 8 pts · 44d

Someone found the glasses charging. I don't know the individual, I can't even remember their name, and I've never interacted with them. As far as I am aware, it's a simple manner of not allowing someone to have a camera strapped to their head when working.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, they were a foreign national who claimed they needed to use them for translation purposes. However, such an excuse can in theory be used by someone trying to commit espionage, so we cannot tolerate it. It was just recommended to their department to provide translated materials to help them grasp work-related terminology.

Zephorah@discuss.online · 39 pts · 44d (1 reply)

Zuckerberg is creepy so this follows. We are talking about a guy who would walk around his startup office with a samurai sword pretending to chop his employees with it. And a guy who deliberately got Julius Caesar’s haircut. And a guy whose original version of Facebook was a platform on which college students could rate the attractiveness of female college students.

otacon239@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 44d

The Social Network gives great insight into just how terrible and awkward he really is. Plus Jesse Eisenberg knocks it out of the park.

Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 44d (1 reply)

Zusk will later introduce an "off" feature for 10 bucks a month.

(it will still record everything surreptitiously)

BioMan@awful.systems · 14 pts · 44d

10 bucks each time you turn it off

EdyBolos@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 44d (1 reply)

Governments should ban this crap. Too bad that they are in bed with Big Tech.

DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 43d

Sometimes literally.

ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 26 pts · 44d

I don't condone violence but,...

Actually, no, I do condone violence against these pricks. Zuck, Bezos, Musk & Co. deserve to be hung by an angry mob.

LostWanderer@fedia.io · 19 pts · 44d (6 replies)

Ugh, this company is totally fucking creepy! If only there were a way to disrupt these glasses using readily available electronics...

WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 12 pts · 44d (1 reply)

There's an Android app that will constantly scan for their Bluetooth signature in the background and alert you.

01189998819991197253@infosec.pub · 9 pts · 44d

I have this app. I work with a douche who wears these (despite then being banned), and this app didn't pick them up.

grue@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 44d (3 replies)

I just bought new glasses and got an IR-blocking lens coating that's supposed to thwart facial recognition from things like these and Flock cameras and whatnot. It's not active disruption via electronics, but it is a countermeasure...

LostWanderer@fedia.io · 4 pts · 44d

Countermeasures are good, despite them not being active...It's important to disrupt these terrible techs whenever possible!

P00ptart@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 44d

They also make hats with IR LEDs that blind the cameras.

stopdropandprole@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 42d

I thought IR only applies to night vision or low light modes, which not all cameras even use.

most surveillance cameras, including the ones being discussed in Meta glasses, just use regular optical sensors for well illuminated environments.

wouldn't IR blocking be completely useless when theres no Infrared LEDs projecting at you?

BlueMonday1984@awful.systems · 17 pts · 43d (5 replies)

Oh, boy, Rapist Glasses

There’s a UK Parliament petition to “Introduce an immediate ban on the sale and promotion of smart glasses”. If you’re in the UK, you might want to sign it. [UK Parliament]

Given Parliament's track record, they'll probably respond by banning glasses that don't have cameras, but I still endorse this

chrisgerhard@mastodon.green · 11 pts · 43d (1 reply)

@BlueMonday1984 @dgerard don't be silly, they will ban children from having glasses.

scruiser@awful.systems · 3 pts · 43d

Isn't UK's usually problem the other way around, they use "Protecting the Children"^tm^ as an excuse to ban sensible things or take away privacy from adults? This would be a first, taking away something from Children to protect the adults.

erisceleste@tech.lgbt · 4 pts · 43d

@BlueMonday1984 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/769206

@dgerard

habermas@mstdn.social · 1 pts · 43d

[ removed ]

strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz · -5 pts · 42d

@BlueMonday1984
> petition to “Introduce an immediate ban on the sale and promotion of smart glasses"

This seems like kind of a knee jerk response. How are "smart" glasses defined? Could such a ban also limit privacy-respecting digital facewear? When covering protests for Indymedia, I would have loved a wearable camera.

If the only thing that makes these different from carrying a "smart" phone is the always-on camera, maybe it would be better to propose regulation specific to that?

@dgerard

fubarx@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 44d (2 replies)

aka, Portable Flock cameras.

KingPorkChop@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 42d (1 reply)

I've been calling them meat based flock cameras.

fubarx@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 42d

Meat Flocker.

You really should make it be a thing.

arcine@jlai.lu · 7 pts · 44d (2 replies)

I don't get why these things even need cameras ?

gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 23 pts · 44d

For mass data collection obviously